'Everybody Draw Mohammed' Day Unleashes Facebook Fracas
By Joshua Rhett Miller - FOXNews.comhttp://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...est=latestnewsWhat started out as a cartoonist's call to action against censorship -- an open invitation to submit caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad -- has led to death threats, a court order and a call for a boycott of Facebook.

Prime Minister David Cameron said Monday that Britains financial situation was even worse than we thought and that the country would have to make savage spending cuts to bring its swelling deficit under control.

Quote:

Mr. Cameron said that at more than 11 percent, Britains budget deficit was the largest ever faced by the country in peacetime. But he warned that the structural deficit was more worrisome. Britain currently owes a total of more than $1.12 trillion , he said, and in five years will owe nearly double that if nothing is done now.

The country already spends more on interest payments on its debt than it does running its schools, he said, adding that how to reduce the deficit and cut down on borrowing was the most urgent issue facing Britain today.

Quote:

The prime minister laid the blame for the situation squarely on what he called reckless spending by the Labour government, which was in power for 13 years before being defeated in last months election. He said that as the financial crisis was Labours legacy, so, too, would be the spending cuts.

Nothing illustrates better the total irresponsibility of the last governments approach than the fact that they kept ratcheting up unaffordable government spending even when the economy was shrinking, he said.

Labour argued that spending would help boost the economy, Mr. Cameron said, conveniently forgetting that if you start with a large structural deficit, ramping up spending even further is likely to undermine confidence and investment, not encourage it.

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the countryliberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Quote:

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

Quote:

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

Quote:

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

In other words, the left tends to want their wishes to be reality. The see what they believe rather than the other way around.

I understand supply-side theory, as do shitloads of Liberals. We just disagree with them greatly. They are theories, and looking back at the last 30 years, theories that can easily be interpreted to be wrong.

I'll put it in terms you can understand: being wrong on some of these basic economic principles is like being a global warming "denier."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

I understand supply-side theory, as do shitloads of Liberals. We just disagree with them greatly. They are theories, and looking back at the last 30 years, theories that can easily be interpreted to be wrong.

These weren't about "supply side" economics (contrary you what you might think, the sum total of economic thought isn't summarized as "supply side economics".) These were questions centered around very basic...econ 101...principles, accepted almost universally by economists.

1) Disagree. There are many cases in which licensing can reduce costs. Even if there's just ONE case, the statement is false. To make a blanket statement like this is clearly showing bias in the question.

2) Agree if by "overall" you mean in average. Unfortunately, the wider the wealth gap, the less important "averages" become. So this too, is a biased and ambiguous question. Whoever wrote these questions is an idiot, that's what I'm learning from this "test".

3) Disagree. There is always somewhere else to go. There is always opportunity for builders to build and make a profit. You don't HAVE to live in Manhattan if you work in Manhattan. And just because you're willing to pay more than some people are able to pay, doesn't mean you're ENTITLED to the desired location.

4) Disagree. I'd love to see the stats JUST on this question.

5) Disagree.

6,7) Disagree. But unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story. Which is a fact that "conservatives" ignore. Market wage leads to feudal economics.

So it looks like out of these seven at least, I got two "wrong". Even though I wasn't really "wrong", I was just in strong disagreement mainly due to the very poorly composed questions.

1) Disagree. There are many cases in which licensing can reduce costs. Even if there's just ONE case, the statement is false. To make a blanket statement like this is clearly showing bias in the question.

Show us one. Then many (which is your claim).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

3) Disagree. There is always somewhere else to go. There is always opportunity for builders to build and make a profit. You don't HAVE to live in Manhattan if you work in Manhattan. And just because you're willing to pay more than some people are able to pay, doesn't mean you're ENTITLED to the desired location.

On this you are simply wrong. The shortage will occur in the area where the rent controls apply. Yes, you can build outside of that area, but then try to extend the rent controls and see what happens. Try rent controls across an entire country and see what happens. Further where people have to live or work* or what the can or are willing to pay are irrelevant to the question at issue. Your argument is basically a red herring. I do applaud you for at least giving this question a bit more thought even though you have come to an incorrect conclusion. I quite seriously doubt that anyone else who answered incorrectly really gave it that much though and that they just don't see the effects prices (and price controls) have the supply of a good or service.

*That people do work in a given city or area and are unable to afford to live there is actually a very common argument from the left in favor of rent controls for that area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

7) Disagree. But unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story. Which is a fact that "conservatives" ignore. Market wage leads to feudal economics.

That raising wages about market prices by government command reduces employment among those below that pay/productivity level is nearly to the point of established economic fact. Further, your claim that "But unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story." is another red herring argument. But feel free to share with us what the rest of the story is so we all know.

I would love to hear both your definition of "feudal economics" and how "market wage" will lead to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Even though I wasn't really "wrong".

No, you pretty much are wrong on those. But congrats on the others. There's hope for you.

I will agree that some of the questions could have been phrased better. An example would be #5. The only correct answer to that question would have to be "Don't know." That question is more as test of someone's reasoning ability. Another would be #3 could be more precisely worded to indicate the area in which the rent controls apply. But some common sense is expected here in assuming that the question means to refer to the area in which the price controls are applied, just as common sense is expected with regard to the minimum wage/unemployment question in understanding that the question means to ask what the effect of raising the minimum wage above market rates would be. But I doubt seriously that anyone answered incorrectly because they we privately thinking, "well if the statutory minimum wage is below market wages, then there would not likely be deleterious employment effects."

The 8th question was: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable."

Actually #3 and #7 are simply two specific cases of the effects of price controls. Price ceilings will create shortages while price floors (minimum wage) will create surpluses (unemployment). These are fairly well established by logic, evidence and historical record. In fact, price ceilings (usually in the form of so-called "price gouging laws) are a chiefs reason we often see shortages of critical goods and services in areas of natural disasters like hurricanes.)

That something like a minimum wage (a price floor) would cause few people to be employed should not be surprising at all. We can easily deduce that this would happen by looking at our own individual behavior in the face of price increases. What do you do when the price of something you buy goes up? Say milk? bottled water? Movie tickets? Gasoline? Etc. What do you do? Most people will find ways to reduce their use of the now higher priced good. Business works the same way with labor. And, by the way, various kinds of employer mandates (like mandated benefits, vacation, maternity leave, or even payroll taxes) are all simply indirect ways to increase wages (the total cost of the employee).

#1 and #8 are activities that essentially muck with supply or competition (reducing them). They (like the licensing requirements) may also have the direct effect of raising prices because licensing costs will be passed onto consumers.

And this week's entry into the terrible analogy contest goes to Ben Bernanke:

Quote:

While he declined to voice an opinion on additional stimulus measures being considered by Congress, he did say it was too early to begin taking the punch bowl away from the party.

Party? Really? Is that what's happening right now?

And what else did Einstein have to say?

Quote:

"Right now I don't think is the time this very moment is not the time to radically reduce our spending or raise our taxes because the economy is still in recovery mode and needs that support," he said in an appearance before the House Budget Committee.

Quote:

Another big boost came from massive government stimulus, including increased federal spending and monetary stimulus in the form of short-term interest rates that have been held near zero by the Fed.

But as those forces recede there are signs the economy may be losing momentum. Some economists are now marking down forecasts that had called for relatively modest growth this year in the 3 percent range.

So, again., we haven't really recovered...we've merely kicked the can further down the road.

"On the heels of a new NRDC report that over 293 mountains and 574,000 acres of hardwood forests in eastern Kentucky have been irreversibly destroyed by mountaintop removal strip mining, Rand Paul flippantly tells a TV interviewer in footage from last fall: "I don't think anyone's going to be missing a hill or two here and there."

Wrong.

"This research shows what a sacrificial lamb Kentucky has been for an industry that is not interested in any kind of restoration," says Kentuckians for the Commonwealth member and eastern Kentucky resident Mick McCoy. "Here in Martin County, more than 25 percent of the land has been leveled by coal companies yet we are among the poorest of counties not just in Kentucky, but the entire country."

Worse yet, Paul erroneously claims that "a lot of the land is desirable once it gets flattened out...Some people like the flat land, and some of it apparently has become rather valuable when it's become flattened."

Wrong again. As NRDC's Rob Perks points out:

Of the 500 mountaintop removal sites we examined, we excluded 90 from our survey due to active, ongoing mining activity. That left 410 supposedly reclaimed mine sites, for which we found that:
366 (89.3%) had no form of verifiable post-mining economic reclamation excluding forestry and pasture

26 (6.3% of total) yield some form of verifiable post-mining economic development

Only about 4% of mountains in Kentucky and West Virginia, where the vast majority of this mining is occurring, had any post-mining economic activity.

"On the heels of a new NRDC report that over 293 mountains and 574,000 acres of hardwood forests in eastern Kentucky have been irreversibly destroyed by mountaintop removal strip mining, Rand Paul flippantly tells a TV interviewer in footage from last fall: "I don't think anyone's going to be missing a hill or two here and there."

Wrong.

"This research shows what a sacrificial lamb Kentucky has been for an industry that is not interested in any kind of restoration," says Kentuckians for the Commonwealth member and eastern Kentucky resident Mick McCoy. "Here in Martin County, more than 25 percent of the land has been leveled by coal companies yet we are among the poorest of counties not just in Kentucky, but the entire country."

Worse yet, Paul erroneously claims that "a lot of the land is desirable once it gets flattened out...Some people like the flat land, and some of it apparently has become rather valuable when it's become flattened."

Wrong again. As NRDC's Rob Perks points out:

Of the 500 mountaintop removal sites we examined, we excluded 90 from our survey due to active, ongoing mining activity. That left 410 supposedly reclaimed mine sites, for which we found that:
366 (89.3%) had no form of verifiable post-mining economic reclamation excluding forestry and pasture

26 (6.3% of total) yield some form of verifiable post-mining economic development

Only about 4% of mountains in Kentucky and West Virginia, where the vast majority of this mining is occurring, had any post-mining economic activity.

Do you prefer strip mining? Ever driven through Pennsylvania? A toppled mountain looks a whole lot better than the results of strip mining. It is a Democrat run state, so I guess they get a a pass?
I take it you and all others against coal mining live on solar and wind energy, off the grid?

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, S.3480, would create an Office of Cyber Policy in the White House with a director accountable to the public who would lead all federal cyberspace efforts and devise national cyberspace strategy. A National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications within the Department of Homeland Security, also led by a director accountable to the public, would enforce cybersecurity policies throughout the government and the private sector. The bill would also establish a public/private partnership to set national cyber security priorities and improve national cyber security defenses.

Quote:

The need for this legislation is obvious and urgent.

Quote:

We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources, limiting our vulnerabilities, and mitigating the consequences of penetrations of our networks.

Quote:

Creation of a responsible framework, developed in coordination with the private sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures to protect the nations most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. The President must notify Congress in advance before exercising these emergency powers. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat and will expire after 30 days unless the President extends them.

I wonder what Joe Lieberbman's motivation is here. We know it isn't really to secure anything.

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

Quote:

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Quote:

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

I wonder if we'll have The Left repeatedly using "Twitters" over the coming years as they've used "The Internets" in mocking reference to one of Bush's past blunders. Nah. Because that mistake doesn't represent Obama being out of touch.

In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its two-year-old conclusion the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

Quote:

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."

Quote:

Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.

So the Supreme Court follows one bad decision with a reasonably good one.

It would be interesting to hear a liberals arguments as to how the bill of rights confers a right to an abortion but not a right to bear arms. Maybe one of the four that voted against this could explain that?

This decision today by SCOTUS complements the earlier HELLER decision in DC; the fallout is that states, cities, and municipalities cannot arbitrarily deny Second Amendment rights to citizens; a strong and ringing endorsement by the Court of the freedoms inherent in the Bill of Rights.

I have always been perplexed by liberals in their reading of the Second Amendment when juxtaposed against the First Amendment; in the latter they defer to complete openness yet for the former they support wide restriction? Why? Both are clear in their intent, as the Court found today in regard to the Second.

Agreed it wasn't a "ringing endorsement". It fell along predictable lines. And there are problems, I think, with decision. It was good, but not great. Given where the SCOTUS has gone, it seems the best we can expect these days.

But, yes, I am waiting for an Obama-scolding. But the timing isn't right. He really needs to do it front of Congress and a national audience where the justices have been invited as guests in order for it to have have its full arrogant, smug, insulting and inappropriate effects.

Agreed it wasn't a "ringing endorsement". It fell along predictable lines. And there are problems, I think, with decision. It was good, but not great. Given where the SCOTUS has gone, it seems the best we can expect these days.

But, yes, I am waiting for an Obama-scolding. But the timing isn't right. He really needs to do it front of Congress and a national audience where the justices have been invited as guests in order for it to have have its full arrogant, smug, insulting and inappropriate effects.

My primary concern about the McDonald gun decision is mostly around the fact that even the (correct) majority decision essentially rejected argumentation centered around the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Had they found that applicable it might have opened the door for even greater freedoms. Though it appears to have been been rendered impotent in the Slaughter-House Cases, an affirmative recognition of it in this case might have renewed the debate and possibly been an even more positive move in the right direction.

Secondly, I think even the majority decision gives too much reassurance to states in their "right" to control arms (does not imperil every law regulating firearms).

My primary concern about the McDonald gun decision is mostly around the fact that even the (correct) majority decision essentially rejected argumentation centered around the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Had they found that applicable it might have opened the door for even greater freedoms. Though it appears to have been been rendered impotent in the Slaughter-House Cases, an affirmative recognition of it in this case might have renewed the debate and possibly been an even more positive move in the right direction.

Secondly, I think even the majority decision gives too much reassurance to states in their "right" to control arms (does not imperil every law regulating firearms).

Overall I think it is a good decision though.

Oh, I see. Well that is a libertarian approach to the constitution. While I appreciate the need for more liberty I confess that as an originalist I see little that can be honestly done with that clause. No one really knows what the heck the author of that phrase intended.

Today's ruling by the Court, and the earlier Heller ruling, address the outrageous examples, such as in the District of Columbia and Chicago, where politicians have ridiculously denied Second Amendment rights to citizens. Moreover, I do not see the difficulty in fully understanding the following phrase:

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The decades of the District of Columbia and Chicago gun bans/restrictions have done nothing to curb crime and in many instances have made life worse for citizens; denying them the right to defend themselves as provided in the Second Amendment. Today the Court re-emphasized the rights that District and Chicago pols have denied their citizens.

That's not news that's opinion. It may explain your political misunderstandings that you think that's news..

Exactly! Arnold has not been a poster boy for the GOP in quite a while. This is a great example of the message not matching the results. When you don't do what you claim you are there to do you will find that your supporters will not support you anymore. What is so hard to understand about that?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

"with a Negro by my side." Byrd added that, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

Today's ruling by the Court, and the earlier Heller ruling, address the outrageous examples, such as in the District of Columbia and Chicago, where politicians have ridiculously denied Second Amendment rights to citizens. Moreover, I do not see the difficulty in fully understanding the following phrase:

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The decades of the District of Columbia and Chicago gun bans/restrictions have done nothing to curb crime and in many instances have made life worse for citizens; denying them the right to defend themselves as provided in the Second Amendment. Today the Court re-emphasized the rights that District and Chicago pols have denied their citizens.

There is a misunderstanding - the right to bear arms is clear in its meaning. However, the "privilages and immunities" clause is a matter of much debate, and little historical insight.

There is a misunderstanding - the right to bear arms is clear in its meaning. However, the "privilages and immunities" clause is a matter of much debate, and little historical insight.

Perhaps, but the debate is way overblown, the historical insight unnecessary... the Second Amendment is but two simple phrases separated by a comma, 27 total words that gun banners and anti-gun zealots have cried about being hard to understand and its meaning unclear. Let me clear away the bull; the meaning is crystal clear and its understanding simple. What SCOTUS did yesterday was completely unnecessary yet, due to ignorant gun banners and anti-gun zealots, required to make the amendment plain.

Gun banners and anti-gun zealots don't seem to have trouble clearly understanding the First Amendment that was written by the same folks who brought us the Second Amendment. Mayor Daley needs to choke on his vomit, admit his error, and start letting the citizens of Chicago enjoy the rights that the Founding Fathers gave to all citizens.

I suggest you stop right there. Throwing dirt on someone who has just died is a reportable offense. He was a Klan memeber in his early 20's and recanted a long time ago ( he was 92 when he died ).
He also since has helped the civil rights movement.

I have a lot of respect for this man as he was the most vocal politician in washington that saw how wrong the invasion of Iraq was.

Any more and I will report it.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination